Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

The Great Democracies’ New Harmony

When Prime Minister Narendra Modi invited US President Barack Obama to attend India’s Republic Day ceremonies earlier this year, it signaled an important change in bilateral relations. No one should expect an Indian-American alliance any time soon, but several factors are likely to strengthen the relationship in the coming years.

CAMBRIDGE – When Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi invited US President Barack Obama to attend his country’s Republic Day ceremonies earlier this year, it signaled an important change in relations between the world’s two biggest democracies. Ever since the 1990s, three American administrations have tried to improve bilateral relations, with mixed results. While annual trade between the countries has soared during this period, from $20 billion to more than $100 billion, annual US-China trade is worth six times more, and the political relationship has had ups and downs.

The two countries have a long history of confusing each other. By definition, any alliance with a superpower is unequal; so efforts to establish close ties with the United States have long run up against India’s tradition of strategic autonomy. But Americans do not view democratic India as a threat. On the contrary, India’s success is an important US interest, and several factors promise a brighter future for the bilateral relationship.

The most important factor is the acceleration in India’s economic growth, which the International Monetary Fund projects will exceed 7.5% through 2020. For decades, India suffered from what some called the “Hindu rate of economic growth”: a little more than 1% per year. It might more properly have been called a 1930s British socialist rate of growth. After independence in 1947, India adopted an inward-looking planning system that focused on heavy industry.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Registration is quick and easy and requires only your email address. If you already have an account with us, please log in. Or subscribe now for unlimited access.

Joseph S. Nye, Jr., a former US assistant secretary of defense and chairman of the US National Intelligence Council, is University Professor at Harvard University. He is the author of
Is the American Century Over?

JOseph Nye should read the Angus maddison OECD reports before commenting. the so-called “Hindu rate of economic growth”: a little more than 1% per year. India pre-colonisation as Bharat accounted for around 30% of the world's GDP and along with CHina almost 60% until the white warlords plundered us from 1800's onwards in all aspected- territorially, socially culturally and materially .
Read more at http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/us-india-relations-improvement-by-joseph-s--nye-2015-08#faDVhDvgVfWSb6wG.99

As usual, ignorance of Indian subcontinent and its political and social constraints - based principally on ancient caste system - defies Nye's future concept of Indo-US alliance (against China).
American academic wish list doesn't include Sino-Indian relations which ultimately might undo US political and economic hegemony of global politics.
If there is any improved US-Indian accommodation, it'll inevitably arise based on Indian military defense procurement - which US Congress must always sanction.
In US Congress, there is an entrenched lobby against Indian procurement of US defense weapons which might tip the scale against Pakistan.
Final analysis, there is the indomitable Indian diaspora with not only venture capital in silicon valley but entrenched political influence in Democratic Party and its values - which ultimately might tip the balance in favor of US.

Though it isn't a point central to the article, it's not really clear whether economic growth has indeed recovered under the new government, and if so, by how much. The accounting has changed and we're getting better numbers than before. With the crash in energy prices the fiscal deficit has certainly reduced.

Very nice posting. One area that has not been talked about is that India has about 200 GW of Electrical Power while China has about 1250 GW of Power going for 2600 GW. I asked President Obama to offer Natural Gas Based 100 GW Power using USA to start, in January 26th, but he offered a Nuclear based power, that may not go anywhere. So, we do need to work out these details no matter how much we want to think great things about.

Joseph S. Nye has forgotten to mention how embarassing the situation was, when Barack Obama, on Narendra Modi's invitation, attended India’s Republic Day celebrations in January and was greeted by an array of Russian weaponry. This lengthy military parade showed how far the US would have to go in its efforts to become India's preferred new military partner.
Since its independence in 1947 India had built friendly relations with Moscow on the basis of realpolitik. During the Cold War India's nonalignment enabled it to accept Soviet support in areas of strategic and military interests, as in disputes with Pakistan and China, without subscribing to Soviet global policies. It explains why India and the US "have a long history of confusing each other" and Washington saw "India’s tradition of strategic autonomy" as a thorn in its side. In the 1990s, since the demise of the Soviet Union, "three American administrations have tried to improve bilateral relations, with mixed results".
It's true that "Americans do not view democratic India as a threat" and that it will not "become a global challenger to the US". On the contrary, the US sees it as an ally, when it comes to countering China's interests in the region. No wonder "India’s success is an important US interest", and Washington will benefit from a "brighter future for the bilateral relationship". However Nye worries about India's development of its human resources, which lags behind that of China. He also sees India's growth above everything else, like environmental issues.
Indeed India has a fast-growing economy with large, skilled workforce, but economic progress is hampered by endemic corruption, engulfing every level of politics and society. Although the country has "an emerging middle class of several hundred million" and has made great strides in "information industries", poverty is still pervasive, with much of the rural population remaining impoverished. Their lives continue to be influenced by the ancient Hindu caste system, which assigns each person a place in the social hierarchy. Modi's election last year meant to breathe life into the country's sluggish economy, and make India more business-friendly.
India's relationship with China is crucial for regional stability, as the two countries still have an unresolved border dispute, following the 1962 war. Although India and China are members of BRICS, Nye says India resents its role in the group as the second fiddle, prompting it to "strengthen its diplomatic relations with Japan". Apart from China, India ought to seek cooperation with Pakistan, its arch rival in the region. Even if an "Indian-American alliance" is still a distant prospect, "given historical Indian public opinion", Nye thinks the two could always benefit from "a relationship in the coming years that will be both sui generis and stronger".

America's capacity remains enormous.
America's goodwill matters.
Perplexing that Public opinion in India may prevent an Indian American alliance.
Perhaps due India's Dynastic Rule and its legacy of Dynasty Economics.
That turned Democracy into Dynasty and Economics into partisanship.
And left India light years behind China's economics.

The "harmony", mutual cooperation in between nations is always welcome.
The question is what the intention, driver is behind such cooperation.
As long as it is still done creating alliances against someone else, or promote narrow self-interest, even mutual self-interest it will not achieve long term positive result.

We have evolved into a globally interconnected, interdependent system.
In such system one can't pick sides, 'friends", "allies" ignoring the rest or even trying to achieve success at the expense of others.
In an integral system such activity will by default cause harm for the whole system.
We have daily examples how such limited, polarized approach is driving us deeper into crisis after every new "solution", "historic breakthrough", "historic agreement".

Our global, integral conditions herald a completely new paradigm that requires a new world-view and new approach towards each other.
In this new system only decisions and action that is beneficial for the whole system can be successful.

I tend to agree with Mr. Hermann's point here. Any unity based upon a common enemy, other than the honestly identified ego and selfishness of all the members of that unity, is--as honor among thieves, hardly a stable social equilibrium. Self-help through mutual responsibility is the only way to harmony. Does this sound like some sort of proposal for a global "Alcoholics Anonymous." You bet--that's why AA is successful, and the UN, as the League of Nations before it, is a pathetic tragicomedy.

See also:

In the first year of his presidency, Donald Trump has consistently sold out the blue-collar, socially conservative whites who brought him to power, while pursuing policies to enrich his fellow plutocrats.

Sooner or later, Trump's core supporters will wake up to this fact, so it is worth asking how far he might go to keep them on his side.

A Saudi prince has been revealed to be the buyer of Leonardo da Vinci's "Salvator Mundi," for which he spent $450.3 million. Had he given the money to the poor, as the subject of the painting instructed another rich man, he could have restored eyesight to nine million people, or enabled 13 million families to grow 50% more food.

While many people believe that technological progress and job destruction are accelerating dramatically, there is no evidence of either trend. In reality, total factor productivity, the best summary measure of the pace of technical change, has been stagnating since 2005 in the US and across the advanced-country world.

The Bollywood film Padmavati has inspired heated debate, hysterical threats of violence, and a ban in four states governed by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party – all before its release. The tolerance that once accompanied India’s remarkable diversity is wearing thin these days.

The Hungarian government has released the results of its "national consultation" on what it calls the "Soros Plan" to flood the country with Muslim migrants and refugees. But no such plan exists, only a taxpayer-funded propaganda campaign to help a corrupt administration deflect attention from its failure to fulfill Hungarians’ aspirations.

French President Emmanuel Macron wants European leaders to appoint a eurozone finance minister as a way to ensure the single currency's long-term viability. But would it work, and, more fundamentally, is it necessary?

The US decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel comes in defiance of overwhelming global opposition. The message is clear: the Trump administration is determined to dictate the Israeli version of peace with the Palestinians, rather than to mediate an equitable agreement between the two sides.